Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @04:50PM
from the apparently-technicolor-is-still-around dept.

Master Moose sends this quote from a Bloomberg report:
"When Apple's next iPhone hits store shelves, Technicolor's engineers will rush to get the handset — not to make calls or play games, but to rip it apart. Technicolor, an unprofitable French company that invented the process for color movies used in The Wizard of Oz and countless other classics, plans to cash in on its 40,000 video, audio and optics patents to turn its fortunes around. The company has a team of 220 people dissecting every new smartphone and tablet from industry goliaths such as Apple, Samsung Electronics and HTC for patent infringements. Although Technicolor signed its first licensing deal in the 1950s, de Russe [executive vice-president of intellectual property at Technicolor] said, 'it feels like the rest of the world has just woken up to why patents are interesting.' Patent licensing is the most profitable business of the company."

Right now Apple bashing is kinda a hipster thing, though the people who do it bend over backwards to talk about how much they hate hipsters. People are always looking for the safe group approved way of showing their non-conformity. I always find it amusing ^_^

No, actually they are not frivolous at all. Design patents have a valid purpose, similar to that of trademarks. By protecting the physical design they prevent copying of the appearance of a good being sold.

i'm not sure where the Editor got the idea that Technicolor are unprofitable. they're doing just fine making movies. they made the transition to digital beautifully, and you'll still see their name buried in the credits of almost any movie you happen to see.

Having just finished working there for 4 years, they are indeed very unprofitable. Yes, certain ventures like movie editing make some money, but the overall company (Thomson/Technicolor) has been unprofitable for the last 11 years. They have over 1 billion euro of debt. The transition to digital movie making is one of the only things they did right. Everything else has been a disaster, and they are being brought down by over-zealous French unions and bloated middle management. It's a company that needs to g

Kinemacolor was only two-colors, as was the first Technicolor. Also, they were both "additive" - the film was black and white, but it passed through a spinning red and green wheel. Technicolor did this in 1916 and Kinemacolor did it several years before that.

Since the article says 90 years, that means 1922 - which probably means they are referring to the first color film... that did not require any special projection equipment, and made a much bigger impact on the film industry. I think Technicolor can take

From the article: Technicolor, which made the first colour movie 90 years ago, holds key patents in digital audio and video....I have to wonder if it's related to H264...

h.264 licensing is different than normal patents, like say, cellphones. The 3GPP decided they didn't want to form a patent pool licensing organization, so to produce a cellphone, you have to negotiate with everyone else for their patent. It's what the Samsung v. Apple, Motorola v. Apple lawsuits are about - licensing of essential patents.

h.264 licensing is different than normal patents, like say, cellphones.... They decided to create the MPEG Licensing Authority (MPEG-LA) to manage the patent portfolio.

This is true, but the patent pool only protects you from other people within the patent pool. If an external entity won't join the pool (and an actual patent troll probably wouldn't) and starts suing people instead, the situation would look very much like what we're seeing here. I'm not saying that's definitely what we're seeing here, but it's possible.

Technicolor isn't the measly US company known long ago for that color thingy from the abstract. It is actually the renamed gathering of activities of what once was Thomson.

So at least in the audio and video field, that H.264, mp3 (pro) and related hardware for you. That is probably also where they are doing the most benefit in their IP. Not for very long, considering the age of the patents involved.

A pretty decent bit at least. They used to own Grass Vally and Thompson Broadcast, two big players in broadcast and cable video, as well as still being apart of cinema both digital and analog. So it's not just some holding company using a once familiar brand-name, they've been a relevant company. Of course, they have sold off a lot of that stuff now so maybe this is another sign of their decline.

You can invent and then sell whatever you want. It can be made cheaper in China. Some sort of patent protection is necessary to reward people who do the invention and innovation. Otherwise, why would any company even bother?

Patents are meant to reward the act of inventing by granting a government-enforced short-term monopoly on its implementation in exchange of it being registered (and thus added to the public pool).

It is of note that the patent system does not require the inventor to license its patents for others to use. It only requires them to be registered. Registering a patent means that, even if the inventor does not license it to others, it is out in the open and will eventually enter the public domain

If nothing else, Technicolor has contributed to that paragon of smoke-and-mirrors: endless growth in gross domestic product. GDP includes funds earned through the "service" of extracting licencing fees, whether sanely justified or obtained by threat of legal oblivion.

Not that Apple, et. al., are innocent by any means, but WTF has Technicolor contributed to humanity in the past twenty years??

The thing is, they could have. I remember reading an article about Kodak vs. Fuji and how, while Kodak was busy trying to figure out how to make disposable digital cameras, Fuji was inventing new kinds of films that enhanced the picture on LCD screens. So when the whole LCD TV thing exploded, there were Fuji products -- emphasis to show that it wasn't just patents -- inside every one.

Technicolor is still a viable brand. I remember it. Why aren't they in on that game? Why aren't there Technicolor-branded TV screens? So what if whatever makes a Technicolor TV "Technicolor" has nothing to do with the original Technicolor film process? It's a worthwhile brand, and if Technicolor had been smart and come up with a little TV technology, it might have licensed its name to every TV manufacturer in Asia.

This will illustrate very clearly how the system it broken. It's not about abstract computer science concepts. It's not about things the jury cannot understand. (Although those optics patents might be highly technical.) It will show beyond doubt how a has been company is suing innovative new companies, in a different era, even different century, just because they can. And . . it's the most profitable business of the company!

Sickening.

But it is even more clear than Microsoft claiming patents that cover Linux or Android, and then claiming Linux or Android are building on Microsoft innovations.

The patent system is supposed to exist to allow inventors to have time to get their product to market and not have some giant company swoop in with their own development lab and get a copy of their product to market before the inventor even has a chance. In the event the inventor does not have the resources to get it to market, or you have an idea that would incorporate with the inventors idea but wouldn't directly compete with his product, he can license the patent to you so you can make your own product.

Earlier than that, the patent was supposed to give the inventor a source of income from sharing his know-how with the world. If he ran a self-owned business, that knowledge would have been lost if he died or retired. If he documents that know-how as a patent, he csn block others from using that knowledge unless they pay him a fee. 30 years was supposed to be enough time for a career to last.

Technicolor wants to sue companies to force them to license their patents. (this is how the patent system is supposed to work)

Apple wants to sue companies to prevent them from creating competitive products (THIS is an example of a broken patent system)

What? You have it completely backwards.

The patent system is exactly designed to prevent the creation of competing products. You invent something and you get to sell that thing exclusively for a limited time, in return for donating the "secret" of its construction to the public domain at the end of that period.

It's the concept of passively sitting on a idea and then trying to extort money from anyone who actually brings a product to market that stifles innovation and acts against the interests of society. If I had my way, the patent system would be use-it-or-lose-it. If you don't make a genuine effort to utilize a patent, you'd have to sell it (not license it) to someone who will or it would become void.

It's the concept of passively sitting on a idea and then trying to extort money from anyone who actually brings a product to market that stifles innovation and acts against the interests of society. If I had my way, the patent system would be use-it-or-lose-it. If you don't make a genuine effort to utilize a patent, you'd have to sell it (not license it) to someone who will or it would become void.

That's fine if your patent is a full end-user product. But say I invent a new kind of spark plug for your car, it won't come into production until you get a major contract. If nobody jumps at the idea, are you going to lose it instantly? Is it good enough if I have a prototype? Then the patent trolls would just collect prototypes like they collect their patents, with no genuine attempt to sell the prototype. Very quickly you can end up in a situation where the only ones who can put patents into production a

Just to be clear for those that are easily confused, Technicolor was invented in America and is named after MIT. From Wikipedia:

The Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation was founded in Boston in 1914 (incorporated in Maine in 1915) by Herbert Kalmus, Daniel Frost Comstock, and W. Burton Wescott. The "Tech" in the company's name was inspired by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Kalmus received his undergraduate degree and was later an instructor. Technicolor, Inc. was chartered in Delaware in 1921.

Although Technicolor signed its first licensing deal in the 1950s, de Russe [executive vice-president of intellectual property at Technicolor] said, 'it feels like the rest of the world has just woken up to why patents are interesting.' Patent licensing is the most profitable business of the company."

Dude has it wrong. Being a Patent Lawyer is the most Profitable Business.

Motorola (first mobile call 1973) are being sued [zdnet.com] by Microsoft (formed 1976) because, whilst clearly they are the newbies in this area, each and every time the obvious sequence of events is brought up out come the naysaysers whining about all Motorolas relevant patents having expired. So, these jerks with their '50s technology is somehow relevant, how?

I would be cartoon knee-knocking scared if I ever "invented" and popular and revolutionary product.
It's basically like a zombie movie with these patent suits. They wait for success and then pop out of the ground in hoards.

I would be cartoon knee-knocking scared if I ever "invented" and popular and revolutionary product. It's basically like a zombie movie with these patent suits. They wait for success and then pop out of the ground in hoards.

Well, just having an idea will get you nowhere. To make any money off it, you have to either have the wherewithal to manufacture it yourself, or convince someone else to.

If you really want to go it alone, unfortunately, I think what I'd look into is to sign on with a patent troll company, like Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures. Seriously. Instead of getting sued, maybe you sell a piece of your patent to them. Then you can try to make a business out of it, and if you run into problems, you've got their

Not if they change the patent slightly. Since they own the patent they can create a new device/process/whatever based on the original and basically renew the patent. Drug companies are famous for this. Look at CFC free albuterol inhalers.

On one hand, you have these companies using patents, an abstract barrier, to make money. On the other hand, they are sniffing out violations by means of reverse engineering. This is an act that, if many big companies had their way, would also be forbidden. Another abstract barrier. Something doesn't add up, but I can't flesh it out. I figured I'd drop this incomplete thought in case someone wanted to pick it up and run with it.

The component you're missing is lawyers. Lawyers make those abstract barriers, and ultimately it is lawyers that profit from those abstract barriers. The whole system is a confidence game built of the lawyers, for the lawyers and by the lawyers.

Are any of these patents software patents? If not, then this is not really a big concern. Software patents are an obscenity, regular patents can be a good thing. Perhaps the system needs a bit of reform, but only software patents should be abolished.

Can we at least limit the number of years they can stall a lawsuit? I'm sick to death of companies suddenly suing after a product has been out for years and sometimes a decade or more. They shouldn't be allowed to wait until the companies rack up a lot of profits before they hit them with a patent they never exploited. A judge should at least limit their recovery to the first three years. The point is if the company had known about the patent maybe they could have made changes to avoid racking up fees. It's

You know, if the engineers referenced the patents in designing these smartphones in order to not have to repeat the discovery and invention process then maybe I could see some payment to these patent companies. They had contributed to the speedy design and manufacture of the phone.

But we all know that this isn't the case. Had the engineers known about the patents ahead of time they would have (likely) either licensed them -- or designed around them to avoid the often outrageous additional costs that it woul

In addition to patent licensing, which covers the registration and examination of the patent at the various international patent offices, I have an additional idea. I doubt I am the first one to think of this though.

How about we tax the value of the patent portfolios of every company holding patents as corporate assets. No longer should the balance sheet reflect the valuation of a patent as merely the filing fees. Instead, require that companies use standard metrics for evaluating the value of each paten